Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Naval Bombardment

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Naval Bombardment Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Naval Bombardment - 8/24/2014 7:24:53 PM   
Timian


Posts: 137
Joined: 9/14/2013
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Has a rule ever been proposed ref allowing Naval Units to Bombard similar to Air and Artillery Units? If so, what did it say? Thanks, Don.
Post #: 1
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/24/2014 7:59:54 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Do you mean bombard like ground strikes?

Or bombard like shore bombardment (equivalent to ground support) during land combats?

The former is not a thing, while the latter is a standard part of the rules.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Timian)
Post #: 2
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/24/2014 8:39:13 PM   
Timian


Posts: 137
Joined: 9/14/2013
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Yes / Ground Strikes. Don.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 3
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/24/2014 9:24:36 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		OK.

I can only speculate, since I know not whether past rules included such a feature, or whether it was suggested for the WiF rules that have been coded for MWiF, or the upcoming revision to the boardgame rules.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Timian)
Post #: 4
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/24/2014 10:25:20 PM   
Ur_Vile_WEdge

 

Posts: 585
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline 		Shore bombardment as ground strikes only came up with Leaders in Flames, the kit that nobody likes to play with.

Put simply, it's absurdly powerful, especially for naval powers like the CW, U.S. and Japan. You'd be able to get a truly ridiculous number of "naval strikes" against anything sitting on the coast.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 5
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/25/2014 2:43:12 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		I think a very old issue of Lines of Communication, like when it was still printed in Canada, had a proposed Naval Ground Strike rule too, but it has never gained any traction, nor should it in my opinion. In WiF 7, shore bombardment is still too powerful anyway. World in Flames is somewhat saying that 6 cruisers are just as valuable for a land battle as an entire corps of veteran infantry. This will be changing in the future of the game.

(in reply to Ur_Vile_WEdge)
Post #: 6
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/26/2014 5:02:21 PM   
AlbertN

 

Posts: 3693
Joined: 10/5/2010
From: Italy
Status: offline 		I agree than its current for Shore Bombing is way too strong and effective; to the extent that the defensive Shore Bombardment is one of the very few optionals I do not use with my gaming buddy.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 7
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/26/2014 5:24:14 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I think a very old issue of Lines of Communication, like when it was still printed in Canada, had a proposed Naval Ground Strike rule too, but it has never gained any traction, nor should it in my opinion. In WiF 7, shore bombardment is still too powerful anyway. World in Flames is somewhat saying that 6 cruisers are just as valuable for a land battle as an entire corps of veteran infantry. This will be changing in the future of the game.

Any small tweak to this would be easy to code. For example, if the contribution of each naval unit were cut in half, or limited to half of the strength of the attacking forces, etc., there would only be one or two lines of code to modify.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 8
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/27/2014 12:29:04 AM   
delatbabel


Posts: 1252
Joined: 7/30/2006
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same *number* of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone.

I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement.

_____________________________

--
Del

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 9
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/27/2014 2:23:37 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same *number* of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone.

I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement.

Fairly easy to code. Enabling the Undo capability would be the only concern.

But I am not changing the rules at the moment (or in the foreseeable future).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to delatbabel)
Post #: 10
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/27/2014 10:28:34 AM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same *number* of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone.

I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement.

Fairly easy to code. Enabling the Undo capability would be the only concern.

But I am not changing the rules at the moment (or in the foreseeable future).


Can we make this an optional rule, if that's easy to code? I also think that this is a reasonable rule change...

_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 11
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/27/2014 11:47:01 AM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline 		Well, putting a new optional rule is well down the list of things to code.

I also find it a very strange rule. Consider D-day: Six divisions invading, plus three airborne divisions, plus some specialized units. Three corps, plus some divisions. In WiF, one might get six corps, representing follow up forces.

Ships represented by WiF counters that provided NGS on D-Day:

Utah beach: Nevada, Quincy, Tuscaloosa, HMS Enterprise, Hawkins, Erebus, Black Prince

Omaha beach: Texas, Arkansas, Glasgow, Bellona, Montcalm

Gold Beach: Ajax, Argonaut, Emerald, Orion

Juno Beach: Belfast, Diadem

Sword Beach: Warspite, Ramilles, Arethusa, Frobisher, Mauritius, Roberts

(I may have missed some. If so, my apologies to any ships and crews I omitted.)

Even assuming that some of these ships provided defensive shore bombardment (and yes, the Allies were using that optional rule ), limiting the amount of shore bombardment to three, or even six, ships is ridiculous.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 12
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/27/2014 2:57:10 PM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Well, putting a new optional rule is well down the list of things to code.

I also find it a very strange rule. Consider D-day: Six divisions invading, plus three airborne divisions, plus some specialized units. Three corps, plus some divisions. In WiF, one might get six corps, representing follow up forces.

Ships represented by WiF counters that provided NGS on D-Day:

Utah beach: Nevada, Quincy, Tuscaloosa, HMS Enterprise, Hawkins, Erebus, Black Prince

Omaha beach: Texas, Arkansas, Glasgow, Bellona, Montcalm

Gold Beach: Ajax, Argonaut, Emerald, Orion

Juno Beach: Belfast, Diadem

Sword Beach: Warspite, Ramilles, Arethusa, Frobisher, Mauritius, Roberts

(I may have missed some. If so, my apologies to any ships and crews I omitted.)

Even assuming that some of these ships provided defensive shore bombardment (and yes, the Allies were using that optional rule ), limiting the amount of shore bombardment to three, or even six, ships is ridiculous.


I think the Allies used a offensive chit (or two) that day.....

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 13
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/27/2014 4:37:49 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline 		Yes, the Allies used a couple of O-chits that impulse. How does that affect the new shore bombardment rule?

At Iwo Jima, bombarding ships included Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Biloxi, Chester, Indianapolis, Pensacola, Salt Lake City, Santa Fe, Tuscaloosa, and Vicksburg.

To repeat, my opinion is that restricting the number of ships that can provide NGS to two (the stacking limit at Iwo Jima) is ridiculous.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 14
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/27/2014 4:42:35 PM   
AxelNL


Posts: 2386
Joined: 9/24/2011
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

Yes, the Allies used a couple of O-chits that impulse. How does that affect the new shore bombardment rule?

At Iwo Jima, bombarding ships included Arkansas, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Biloxi, Chester, Indianapolis, Pensacola, Salt Lake City, Santa Fe, Tuscaloosa, and Vicksburg.

To repeat, my opinion is that restricting the number of ships that can provide NGS to two (the stacking limit at Iwo Jima) is ridiculous.


The suggestion was to ease the limit when a chit was used in that impulse. But coding becomes very quickly more complex with these kind of suggestions....

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 15
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/29/2014 2:21:20 PM   
Timian


Posts: 137
Joined: 9/14/2013
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don.

(in reply to AxelNL)
Post #: 16
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/29/2014 3:09:40 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline 		What is really annoying about naval bombardment?

Having to click each ship to add bombardment points to offense or defense.
Especially the part when after each ship the program centers back on the stack at sea. Depending on the sea zone. Zoom setting 2 must be used. The China sea is one of those. My opponent and I bag on this whenever we use ship bombardment.

Could there be an easier way to add multiple ships to a bombardment? Is there a secret key combination we have missed? Setting?

Also restriction of the number of ships to bombard is not a good idea. The mechanic of not adding more combat factors than what is already in the hex is a limit in itself. Boo hoo, The USN and RN have lots of ships. They pay good build points for them. Let them be used in any combination they want.

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Timian)
Post #: 17
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/29/2014 3:14:35 PM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline 		Fire Control Officer: 'Captain, we have to crease firing at the enemy.'

Captain: 'Why? Are we out of shells?'

FCO: 'No. We have plenty of shells. But we have reached the maximum number of shells we are allowed to shoot.'

Captain:

Makes perfect sense to me NOT.

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 18
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/29/2014 3:24:49 PM   
WarHunter


Posts: 1207
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Fire Control Officer: 'Captain, we have to crease firing at the enemy.'

Captain: 'Why? Are we out of shells?'

FCO: 'No. We have plenty of shells. But we have reached the maximum number of shells we are allowed to shoot.'

Captain:

Makes perfect sense to me NOT.


Not exactly sure what you are saying?

The Ground combat force is the limiting factor in the game for both Air and naval combat factors.

This is not something that has changed with any edition of the game.
Maybe you can explain what you want? No matter how extreme it sounds.

_____________________________


“We never felt like we were losing until we were actually dead.”
Marcus Luttrell

(in reply to Numdydar)
Post #: 19
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/29/2014 5:44:54 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline 		A really interesting debate. I think you can make cogent arguments either way, but personally I agree with those that think NGS is too powerful currently.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 20
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/29/2014 6:45:30 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats.

There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII.


_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 21
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/29/2014 7:03:21 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats.

There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII.

warspite1

Good point.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 22
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/29/2014 7:04:10 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Not only that, but the ships higher up in the box are more effective at shore bombardment.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 23
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/30/2014 12:11:35 AM   
Numdydar

 

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarHunter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Fire Control Officer: 'Captain, we have to crease firing at the enemy.'

Captain: 'Why? Are we out of shells?'

FCO: 'No. We have plenty of shells. But we have reached the maximum number of shells we are allowed to shoot.'

Captain:

Makes perfect sense to me NOT.


Not exactly sure what you are saying?

The Ground combat force is the limiting factor in the game for both Air and naval combat factors.

This is not something that has changed with any edition of the game.
Maybe you can explain what you want? No matter how extreme it sounds.


I was referring to this post from above.


quote:

ORIGINAL: delatbabel

The change that has been made in v.8 of the rules, which is quite a good one IMHO, is that there can only be the same *number* of ships shore bombarding as there are corps-sized land units in the side of the combat. i.e. if you are attacking with 3 corps, then only 3 ships can shore bombard. It makes the big battleships a bit more useful, and combined with the "spotting bombarding fleets" rule really limits the amount of impact that shore bombarding ships can have in the combats occurring along the edge of their sea zone.

I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement.


But due to my lack of typing skills and other factors, my post did not appear right after this so so sowed confusion all around

(in reply to WarHunter)
Post #: 24
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/30/2014 12:38:50 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Timian

Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don.

It is still in playtest development and has not been officially released. It has been made available to players at the US, Europe and Australian WiFCons.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 8/30/2014 1:42:31 AM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Timian)
Post #: 25
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/30/2014 3:03:13 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

My main trouble with shore bombardment is with the sea box system. The ships are close to the shore bombarding enemy troops yet they are very hard to find for short range aircraft. No mines either. No torpedo boats.

There are no risk involved with shore bombardment im WIF that was a present danger and a deterrent during WWII.



This is a great point and it has been brought up many times over the years I think. For a good example of this, read up on what happened to the USS Savannah. In general though, the Allies operated with such air and naval superiority at any and all amphibious operations that the defenders rarely were able to hurt the supporting naval ships. But that was in history … the game is much different as humans commanding cardboard will take greater risks and operate on more of a shoe-string. The game can reward this at times in ways that reality would not.

The not-yet-public rules edition 8 attempts to address this but fails in my opinion. The ships that shore bombard have to drop to the 0 box after they do it .. in theory this makes them more vulnerable to enemy NAV units at sea, as the enemy NAV would get a surprise point bonus attacking the 0 box. But I disagree, as dropping to the 0 box just allows any short range FTR on the invading side to cover the ships, from any base touching the sea zone. Not realistic at all. And in terms of striking at an invasion ….. your infantry can see the enemy battleships bombarding them and the landing craft disgorging troops in their binoculars, but your bomber pilots have to roll a 3 or 4 to attack those same ships?

My suggestion to the Rules 8 process was to place shore bombarding ships and ships unloading invading troops (only invasions) on the adjacent sea-dot during the enemy impulse (one impulse only), where they could be subject to a Port Strike mission (still subject to search dice and the random chaos of war, but hex-dot considered to be 0 box instead of a 3 or 5 as in port). And the invading side would have to figure out how to get fighter cover over that sea-dot. This was rejected in favor of the now many years old proposal of moving them to the 0 box instead.

Invading an enemy shore outside of the range of your own land-based air would be a serious thing. Carriers could cover things to a degree of course. But WiF has this problem everywhere due to the sea box system. The best US strategy in the Pacific, in my opinion, is to use Wake and the Marshalls for an airbase for fighters to cover the invasion of the Bonin Islands (Iwo Jima). Which would be completely impossible in the real Pacific.

It is my sincere hope that the MWiF project will be finished, then WiF8 and Days of Decision can be put on a computer, and some day after that the power of computer technology can be put to use to solve some of the realism problems that creep in to the otherwise highly playable sea-box system. And Fog-of-War in production too, and other things that get lost in realism in the interest of playability in person. Computers can help improve that trade-off. But I'm not holding my breath that any of that will ever happen.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 26
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/30/2014 8:42:15 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		Another problem with dropping them to the zero box is that at the end of the turn, they can return to bases much further away than if they were in the 3 or 4 box. Combined with the ease with which so many short range fighters (which by '44 the Allies have a surfiet of) can cover them (leaving the better, longer range fighters to cover the troops inland, and allowing them a no-action-cost rebase to the continent) makes it a very poor rule change IMO.

...but it is a separate option, and players can and should choose not to use it.

Seems to me that because of the longer range rebase factor, the final wording was that if you use the rule, the defender decides if the invading/shore bombarding ships go down to the zero box or not, then the attacker has the option to move any others (CVs anyone?) from the same box along with them.

Sounds like a real fun coding challenge if it ever were to be added to MWiF.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 27
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/30/2014 9:58:11 AM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Timian

Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don.


I believe this is WiF 8

2008 WiF Annual (incl Factories in Flames) Price: $60.00 US, $60.00 AU



_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to Timian)
Post #: 28
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/30/2014 12:13:38 PM   
Timian


Posts: 137
Joined: 9/14/2013
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline 		Thanks / Pretty sure I have the 2008 WiF Annual / Will look when I get Home. Don.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 29
RE: Naval Bombardment - 8/30/2014 12:55:36 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Extraneous


quote:

ORIGINAL: Timian

Where can I get a copy (digits) of RAW 8.0? Thanks, Don.


I believe this is WiF 8

2008 WiF Annual (incl Factories in Flames) Price: $60.00 US, $60.00 AU



RAW 8 is not yet available anywhere.
It is still under developpement.

Bits of the 2008 Annual are included in RAW8, but RAW8 is not in the 2008 Annual.

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Naval Bombardment Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.594